On November 19, 2008 the Faculty Senate approved the following step-by-step procedure for
considering and approving a new General Education Program.
1) Articulate the mission of the General Education Program (GEP) at UWSP.
 Approved May 2008
2) Develop the explicit goals and program outcomes of the GEP.
 Approved February 2009
3) Identify the GEP model (core, distribution, decentralized, etc.) including its
relationship to degree types (BA, BS, BFA, BM).
4) Identify the structural components of the GEP and specify measurable learning
outcomes for each.
5) Develop course criteria for the GEP.
6) Make recommendations regarding the administration of the GEP.
________________________________
GEPRC Proposal, Step 3: Identify the GEP model (core, distribution, decentralized, etc.)
including its relationship to degree types (BA, BS, BFA, BM).
The committee recommends that UWSP employ a distribution model in creating a curriculum
to meet its recently approved GEP Program Outcomes. (For a brief description of the
differences between core, distribution, and decentralized models, see the attached Appendix.)
By its very nature, the distribution model allows substantial flexibility in the shaping of a
curriculum. Consequently, to this broad recommendation, the committee adds the following
specific proposals:
a) The General Education Program should apply to all students regardless of degree type
(BA, BS, BM, and BFA).
b) In addition to the GEP, separate degree requirements for the BA, BS, BM, and BFA
should be developed at the university-level by the Academic Affairs Committee after
Step 4 is complete.
This was approved by Faculty Senate, April 2009.
Page |2
Explanation of Proposal
The committee recommends that UWSP employ a distribution model in creating a curriculum
to meet its recently approved GEP Program Outcomes.
The committee believes the distribution model offers the best approach for UWSP in providing
students with the new perspectives referred to in the recently approved GEP goals and
outcomes. Although a core curriculum offers significant advantages for assessment, staffing
difficulties at institutions as big as UWSP make this approach untenable. Likewise, although a
decentralized model offers the most flexibility to departments and programs in structuring a
general education curriculum, its administration and assessment would be problematic at best.
The chief pitfall associated with general education programs utilizing the distribution model is
that their curricula are not built around clear learning outcomes and therefore are incoherent
and difficult to assess. This is an apt description of UWSPs current GDRs. By contrast, because
the new GEP will rest on a foundation of clearly stated, measureable learning outcomes, we can
take advantage of the flexibility of the distribution model while avoiding its principal
shortcoming.
As to the more specific recommendations:
a) The General Education Program should apply to all students regardless of degree type
(BA, BS, BM, and BFA).
This recommendation is based on the idea that UWSP’s new General Education Program
should apply uniformly to all students. In other words, we favor creating a GEP
curriculum that is truly “general.” This would mark a significant change from our
current GDRs in which the differences among degree types (BA, BS, BM, and BFA) are
built into the structure of the program. Consequently, if this proposal is accepted,
UWSP would need to establish a different method for distinguishing among the degree
types. Hence, our second proposal below:
b) In addition to the GEP, separate degree requirements for the BA, BS, BM, and BFA
should be developed at the university-level by the Academic Affairs Committee after
Step 4 is complete.
Members of the committee are grateful for the many comments we received on this
issue. It seems clear that the campus community wishes to maintain separate
university-level requirements to distinguish the degree types. Consequently, we have
revised our proposal accordingly.
Page |3
If this proposal is accepted, the baccalaureate degree at UWSP would be comprised of
three sets of requirements:
GEP
BA, BS, BM,
BFA
Requirements
(est. by
university)
Baccalaureate
Degree
Major
The committee continues to believe that this arrangement is simpler and therefore
much better than allowing the colleges to establish such requirements. Much like the
GEP, we believe that such requirements should apply uniformly to all students
regardless of major. In addition, we hope that departments are given discretion over
which degrees they offer their majors.
Finally, if this proposal is accepted, we recommend delaying the formulation and
approval of university degree requirements until after the structural components and
learning outcomes of the GEP have been approved (Step 4).
Page |4
Appendix
GENERAL EDUCATION MODELS*
All programs in general education share similar goals: to communicate a set of skills,
experiences, and knowledge that universities deem important to all students, regardless of
major. Most programs require competencies in English, Math, and Foreign Languages, as well
as basic courses in the Social Sciences, Humanities, and Natural Sciences. Some include
additional components, such as courses relating to ethnic diversity, non-western culture, or
environmental studies.
The major differences in the ways schools approach general education lie in how such programs
are structured. The Research Team identified three broad approaches. The first and most
restrictive may be referred to as the Core Model. It requires students to complete a prescribed
set of common courses. The courses are typically interdisciplinary, are often taught by faculty
from various departments, and attempt to introduce students to the specific skills and content
that universities wish to convey. The second approach, less restrictive than the Core, can be
referred to as the Distribution Model. Under this scheme, students are free to choose their
courses from various menus divided by category, each of which has been approved by a central
governing committee to fulfill a certain type of general education credit. (For example, rather
than a single core course in the Humanities, students can choose from a menu of Humanities
classes, taught independently by faculty in a variety of departments.) This is the model we
currently use at UWSP. Third and finally, the least restrictive approach can be referred to as the
Decentralized Model. Such programs allow the various colleges and/or departments to craft
their own general education requirements which their respective majors must fulfill.
Each general education model has its strengths and weaknesses. The Core Model perhaps best
facilitates the assessment of general education, since all students take exactly the same courses,
the content of which is prescribed. In addition, because the core courses are not part of any
particular major, the instructors can focus on general education goals rather than specific
content. At the same time, this approach presents numerous difficulties in staffing and
allocation of resources, because core courses are usually taught by faculty from numerous
departments who must share responsibility for the Core. To achieve maximum effectiveness, it
is probably best to have faculty who are dedicated to general education teach the core
curriculum, instead of rotating new hires through the dubious responsibility of “taking their
share of the bread and butter courses”. However, finding a sufficient number of dedicated
faculty members could be problematic, especially since hiring is typically done to meet specific
departmental needs. Thus, the Core Model works best when a separate academic program is
established to administer the general education curriculum.
The Distribution Model relies on individual departments for staffing and allows students greater
flexibility in selecting their courses, but it also complicates assessment and can lead to turf
battles among departments over control of general education courses and the resources they
Page |5
entail. In fact, once a university or college decides to use this approach, it is extremely difficult
to make substantial changes in the general education requirements without raising objections
from departments that perceive they will lose resources in the process. Thus, the Distribution
Model becomes a vehicle for maintaining status quo, unless new general education objectives
are simply added to existing requirements.
The principal advantage to the Decentralized Model is that it allows departments and programs
the greatest flexibility in designing a curriculum appropriate for their students; but at the same
time, this approach is essentially an affront to the whole concept of general education. This
model is especially problematic in the area of assessment, and it creates a complex array of
differing requirements that can complicate switching majors, not to mention simply explaining
those requirements to students.
* Taken from the “UWSP General Education Research Team Report,” by Karyn Biasca, Patricia
Holland, David Ozsvath, and Gregory Summers, August 15, 2007